Version 2.4 of the OpenOffice productivity suite was released on Thursday, boasting enhancements to all its core components. Possibly the most significant alteration in the new version of the free suite is in the description of file types. The 'OpenDocument' description has been replaced by 'ODF', which stands for 'OpenDocument Format' and is becoming a well-known acronym thanks to rivalry with Microsoft's controversial OOXML format.

I use OpenOffice at home. Its is getting better, but its a long way from being at the point where I would prefer it over MS Office. For a business the money is well worth it and my when I purchase my next notebook I will be purchasing Office 2007.

I always find it hard to comprehend. Businesses spend obscene amounts of money on their employees salaries, medical, etc and then they get them some old computer with cheap peripherals. In the case of your company they give a fraction on software of the employee's total cost to company and in doing so give them an inferior product.

If you value you're time and want the best then MS Office is the only competitor right now and I have tried most if not all except the latest version of iWork but that does not run on Windows or Linux so I can't use it anyway.

I agree that OpenOffice still has a way to go to be technically equivalent to MS Office (especially in terms of speed), and that you should use the software that is best for your business.

Having said that, you could still consider recommending OO to friends and colleagues with less exacting needs (e.g. for home use) - if Microsoft's monopoly is finally broken and we get a genuinely open file format in common use, it will be good for everyone (except Microsoft) - you will find that the price of MS Office itself will come down, and with a more level playing field new competitors will be more likely to write their own office suites, further increasing competition, quality and choice.

I always find it hard to comprehend. Businesses spend obscene amounts of money on their employees salaries, medical, etc and then they get them some old computer with cheap peripherals. In the case of your company they give a fraction on software of the employee's total cost to company and in doing so give them an inferior product.

I fully agree with what you've said and the quoted part of your post sums up exactly why OO doesn't make a huge dent in the corporate space. Companies are there to make money. If a good computer + software make their employees more productive, why not just buy them the software they need? If you begrudge your employees $500 software (much less if you get a site license) that gets upgraded every 3 - 4 years, you need to start reevaluating your business.